In message , at 17:16:11 on Wed, 11 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:

County Councils provide the street lighting.

not where I live they don't :-)

Unitary Authority?

or London Borough, City of London or Westminster,

If those are equivalent in the distribution of civic responsibilities
to a unitary authority, then they come into the same basket.

weird isn't it

London Boroughs are technically different to Unitaries but actually
identical

I suppose more things have been given to the Mayor to look after, but I
don't think that was the case when they were first set up

I remember the LCC (London County Council) which was a precursor to the
GLA. Perhaps they did education - like other real counties, whereas now
the Boroughs do?
--
Roland Perry

On 11/09/2019 17:16, tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
14:11:32 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Robin remarked:
On 11/09/2019 13:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:22:29 on Wed, 11 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:

There are lots of people who can't easily have an electric
car, they
include my parents who live in a street of Victorian terraces
with
narrow pavement. However I think more than half the population
could
charge at home.

So what do the other half do..?

Something else. There doesn't need to be one solution for everyone.

but the solution isn't in the hands of individual - I can't just
decide to have a charge point connected to the local street lamppost

No-one can because the street lights are on circuits not much
bigger thanÂ* a 13A ring main, Separate from the supply to
premises. Unless the premisesÂ* supply is on overhead wires
(typically rural areas), when there's a wholeÂ* other set of
constraints in the overall amperage.

HMG has to facilitate it (even if they don't directly provide it)

County Councils provide the street lighting.

not where I live they don't :-)

Â*Unitary Authority?

or London Borough, City of London or Westminster,

If those are equivalent in the distribution of civic responsibilities
to a unitary authority, then they come into the same basket.

weird isn't it

London Boroughs are technically different to Unitaries but actually
identical

yes - and um, well, it all depends

the problem is that "unitary authority" doesn't have a single, canonical
meaning[1]



I suppose more things have been given to the Mayor to look after, but I
don't think that was the case when they were first set up


IIRC there were some pan-London bodies from the outset , but yes it was
the creation of the GLA that took away strategic functions like planning
and transport.

[1] Hence eg the Crossrail Act needed to define

“unitary authority� means—
(a) the council of any county so far as it is the council for an area
for which there are no district councils;
(b) the council of any district comprised in an area for which there is
no county council;
(c) the council of a London borough;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:16:11 on Wed, 11 Sep 2019,
tim... remarked:

County Councils provide the street lighting.

not where I live they don't :-)

Unitary Authority?

or London Borough, City of London or Westminster,

If those are equivalent in the distribution of civic responsibilities to
a unitary authority, then they come into the same basket.

weird isn't it

London Boroughs are technically different to Unitaries but actually
identical

I suppose more things have been given to the Mayor to look after, but I
don't think that was the case when they were first set up

I remember the LCC (London County Council)

how far back are you going?

I lived there through my childhood and it predates my remembering

The (current) boroughs were created in 1965 (I can't remember that either)
and at (more or less) the same date the GLC was created.

Inner London borough education was under the auspices of ILEA, outer
boroughs certainly had control of education in 71 when I got ****ed by the
system.

GLC was abolished in 86 when (presumably) the functions (except inner London
education and transport) moved down to the boroughs. Bus/underground must
have remained being controlled by a now autonomous London Transport
(certainly the daily bus pass worked within the whole "GLC" area). I don't
think that there was a strategy London Roads Authority (perhaps it was still
DpT responsibility).

ILEA was abolished in 1990 when inner boroughs took over in their area.

The London assembly and (new) Mayor were created in 2000 when strategic
items all moved back again Education remaining with the boroughs.

So (apart from busses/underground) London Boroughs looked like any other
Unitary Authority from 1986 to 2000.

HTH

tim












which was a precursor to the
GLA. Perhaps they did education - like other real counties, whereas now
the Boroughs do?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:16:11 on Wed, 11 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:

County Councils provide the street lighting.

not where I live they don't :-)

Unitary Authority?

or London Borough, City of London or Westminster,

If those are equivalent in the distribution of civic responsibilities
to a unitary authority, then they come into the same basket.

weird isn't it

London Boroughs are technically different to Unitaries but actually
identical

I suppose more things have been given to the Mayor to look after, but I
don't think that was the case when they were first set up

I remember the LCC (London County Council) which was a precursor to the
GLA. Perhaps they did education -

Well the white china plates at my first primary school in Chiswick had
LCC marked on the underside if that is any indication.
Was a while back mind, they marched us over the park to the edge of the
Great West Road to watch President Eisenhower pass by .


GH

In message , at 19:13:28 on Wed, 11 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:

I remember the LCC (London County Council)

how far back are you going?

I was born in London, and went to Primary School there. Left in the
early 60's.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:41:59 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:06:22 on Wed,
This is nothing to do with electric cars as such - these houses are not
designed for cars at all (even if they claim otherwise).

The claim we need to be interested in is that 40% of houses have
garages, and are therefore suitable for hosting chargers and electric
cars. The 40% figure ignores the fact that $foo% of those "garages" are
entirely unsuitable for that task.

My claim was about half of homes could have an electric charger based
on 40% having a garage and 26% having other off street parking. 3 million
of those homes might be unsuitable for installing an electric charger
and we still get to my about half.

I've been unable to find better figures, perhaps someone else can?

More of the 'you can't stick anything on the front of your house and the
door has to be grey' kind of covenants.

I've seen door colour restrictions in conservation areas, but nothing as
generic as "anything on front".

I lived in a 2001 build house which didn't allow a change in front door
colour. Street View shows my old door has been replaced and is now a
different colour but the developer has long gone so I expect the covenant
isn't enforceable.

In message , at 10:58:27 on
Thu, 12 Sep 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:41:59 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:06:22 on Wed,
This is nothing to do with electric cars as such - these houses are not
designed for cars at all (even if they claim otherwise).

The claim we need to be interested in is that 40% of houses have
garages, and are therefore suitable for hosting chargers and electric
cars. The 40% figure ignores the fact that $foo% of those "garages" are
entirely unsuitable for that task.

My claim was about half of homes could have an electric charger based
on 40% having a garage and 26% having other off street parking. 3 million
of those homes might be unsuitable for installing an electric charger
and we still get to my about half.

I've been unable to find better figures, perhaps someone else can?

I think there are unlikely to be any official figures, because they
won't be compiling stats for whether the garages are integral/attached
to the house (and therefore potentially suitable), too narrow (and
therefore unsuitable again), or disjoint from the house (in a block, at
the end of the garden etc) and again unsuitable.

[I'm ignoring the garages that would be suitable, if they weren't full
of junk and households where the number of cars exceeds the garages].

The same (apart from the width and the junk) is also true of off-street
parking.

More of the 'you can't stick anything on the front of your house and the
door has to be grey' kind of covenants.

I've seen door colour restrictions in conservation areas, but nothing as
generic as "anything on front".

I lived in a 2001 build house which didn't allow a change in front door
colour.

Was it in a conservation area, or on a development with private roads
and a management company?

Street View shows my old door has been replaced and is now a different
colour but the developer has long gone so I expect the covenant isn't
enforceable.

What about covenants for "things on the front", other than satellite
dishes?
--
Roland Perry

On 12/09/2019 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:

What about covenants for "things on the front", other than satellite
dishes?

When my family and I moved into a new house in the Midlands in 1972
there was a covenant you couldn't install a TV aerial on the front of
the house. Plenty of satellite dishes there now, though, looking on
street view.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

In message , at 17:31:29 on Thu, 12
Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

What about covenants for "things on the front", other than satellite
dishes?

When my family and I moved into a new house in the Midlands in 1972
there was a covenant you couldn't install a TV aerial on the front of
the house. Plenty of satellite dishes there now, though, looking on
street view.

My last house had a covenant of "no aerials attached to the chimney" but
luckily the height and orientation meant it was OK to stick one in the
loft.

TV aerials on the front of houses aren't that common, but I thought I'd
cite some anyway: https://goo.gl/maps/VF4bAofQzBGnh9rZ6
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:16:50 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:58:27 on
Thu, 12 Sep 2019, David Walters remarked:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:41:59 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:06:22 on Wed,
More of the 'you can't stick anything on the front of your house and the
door has to be grey' kind of covenants.

I've seen door colour restrictions in conservation areas, but nothing as
generic as "anything on front".

I lived in a 2001 build house which didn't allow a change in front door
colour.

Was it in a conservation area,

No.

or on a development with private roads
and a management company?

No.

Street View shows my old door has been replaced and is now a different
colour but the developer has long gone so I expect the covenant isn't
enforceable.

What about covenants for "things on the front", other than satellite
dishes?

Sort of, caravans were banned for example.

It was one house of four. The developer didn't want someone to do
something ugly until they were all sold. After that they weren't very
interested.